Below is the text of
an article by Francisco Gil-White, in which, I charge, Gil-White has falsified a
quotation to support his claim that Rabbi Stephen Wise, main leader of the
Jewish community in the US in the 1930s and 1940s, wanted the
Holocaust. For the evidence of falsification, see "How Francisco Gil-White Falsified
Documentation to Slander Rabbi Stephen S. Wise as Wanting the
Holocaust" at http://emperors-clothes.com/comment31.htm

Gil-White's article is posted below exactly as it appeared on 4
April 2006, before I made my first criticism of it on the Arutz
Sheva website, with the exception that I have removed some
hyperlinks that have no bearing on the truth or falsity of his
quotations. The article is posted for Fair Use only.

Said on the eve of
the Nazi genocide by “Reform Rabbi
Stephen Wise, the undisputed leader of organized
American Jewry”[19],
and “probably the most influential and
well-respected American Jew of his generation”[24a],
in reply to British prime minister Neville
Chamberlain’s suggestion that Jewish refugees from
Hitler might settle in Tanganyika.

Stephen Wise got his
wish.

________________________________________________________

Introduction

As George Santayana
famously said, “Those who cannot remember the past are
condemned to repeat it.” For the Jewish people, this
means repeating Catastrophe. Therefore, if you
are a member of the Jewish community, which has been
subjected to genocidal attacks for over 2000 years, the
rational
thing is to expect another such attack and prepare
for it, the better to mount an effective self-defense
and, ideally, to prevent the next mass killing
altogether. You should study the past and remember it,
so that you can recognize the signs that herald a new
genocide and identify them when they recur.
Unfortunately, however, the Jews are ill-equipped and
ill-disposed to do this: they find it difficult to think
rationally about their self defense. Jewish author
Kenneth Levin has recently made the latest addition to a
large literature that tries to understand this general
problem.[1a]

An example of what I mean
is that most Jews are unable to recognize the signs
indicating that their own mainstream leaders are taking
them down the path to destruction, just as mainstream
Jewish leaders did the same prior to and during World
War II. Don't misunderstand me: it was the German Nazis
who were killing the Jews, and this was obviously not
the fault of the Jewish people or of its leaders. But
equally obviously, the Jewish leadership prior to and
during World War II had an obligation to defend the
Jewish people, and it must be held accountable for how
it reacted before the threat of Jewish extinction.
But Jewish leaders have not been held accountable.
Stephen Wise, quoted above, is -- absurdly -- considered
a hero by modern Jews, and “in the Jewish world, schools
and museums and streets are named after Wise.”[1b]
And yet Wise's role, as I will document below, was to
use his position of supreme authority in the American
Jewish community to sabotage the most successful effort
to rescue the desperate European Jews, making it easier
for the German Nazis to murder in cold blood between 5
and 6 million innocent people, destroying a beautiful,
irreplaceable culture.

So why the Jewish
celebration of Stephen Wise?

One main reason is that
most ordinary Jews are unaware of what Wise and Co. did
prior to and during WWII to sabotage the defense of the
Jewish people. It is irrational that Jews should not
know this history well, but it is true that some special
institutional difficulties exist: the same mainstream
leaders who betrayed the Jewish people in WWII created
the mainstream Jewish organizations that hold sway over
the Jewish people today. Stephen Wise himself was
"president of both the American Jewish Congress and the
World Jewish Congress [which organizations he created],
and a key figure, often chief officer, of perhaps a
dozen other organizations and institutes."[1c]
In consequence, the people running these dominant
organizations today have been careful not to expose the
performance of their predecessors, in whose steps they
are eagerly following, once again endangering the Jewish
people in circumstances very similar to those that
announced the German Nazi Final Solution. The
connections between the past and current leadership are
clear.

The present article is
concerned with what happened in WWII. Its sequel,
Part 2, will examine
how today's mainstream Jewish leaders in the
Diaspora are condemning the Jews to repeat a horrific
history. Part 3 will do the same for today's Israeli
leaders. Part 4 will close the series by seeking to
provide a satisfying theory to explain why the Jews in
general find reasoning about their self-defense so
difficult, and why their leadership tends so easily to
betray the unfortunate Jewish people. The point of this
exercise is to prevent another Catastrophe, for the
Jewish people is once again in mortal danger.

A few words about antisemitism
_______________________________

The topic of this article
is delicate, and the interest in this issue is easily
misinterpreted. So I begin with a few clarifications.

In a related article, I
defined antisemitism as follows:

“Antisemitism is a way of
looking at the world, a perspective, and it impairs
reasoning by insisting on the following sequence: first,
suspend in the air the anti-Jewish conclusion; then
build in a helter-skelter rush to the ground a
scaffolding of ‘premises’; finally, never heed how
ridiculous the crookedly resulting, upside-down
staircase becomes.”[2]

For example, first,
decide to apologize for those who carried out the German
Nazi Final Solution; then, find a way to do it, no
matter how ridiculous. One such ridiculous maneuver, as
Louis Rapoport explains, is that “Enemies of the Jewish
people lap up any evidence that some Jews...may have
prevented other Jews from being saved from the Nazi
exterminators.”[3]
Why do the antisemites imagine this works for them?
Because they employ it to produce the pseudo-argument
that, since some of the people who facilitated the
extermination of the European Jews in World War II were
Jewish, “they were doing it to themselves,” and hence,
who are the Jews to complain about the gentiles who
murdered Jews in World War II?

What is the problem with
this 'argument'?

Well, just imagine
somebody saying, about the suffering of the Chinese
people during the Cultural Revolution, that since the
leaders of this outrage were Chinese, “they were doing
it to themselves.” They were? Of course not. In this
case everybody can see that a majority of the Chinese
were being made to suffer by a few Chinese:
nobody was doing anything to him or herself. But we live
in antisemitic cultures, and in consequence this sort of
thing is obvious only so long as we are not talking
about Jews, so I am going out of my way here to make
certain things perfectly clear.

First, the ordinary Jews
who perished in the death camps are the same victims
regardless of who murdered them. What does this mean?
That doing justice to these victims requires laying the
blame at the feet of any and all who played a
role in their deaths. The Jewish identity of some who
functioned as indirect executioners can only compound
the tragedy of the victims; what it cannot logically do
is excuse these Jewish leaders, much less excuse the
non-Jews who directly set the death machinery in
motion and kept it running.

This article addresses
the question of why some in the mainstream Jewish
leadership during World War II actively discouraged
and sabotaged the defense of the Jewish people. Not
because it will excuse the gentile criminals responsible
for the Nazi Final Solution, but because we cannot allow
another such Catastrophe to take place, and the only way
to prevent history from repeating itself is to
understand it. The Jewish people will be attacked again:
this is guaranteed, for it happens virtually every
century, and as I write antisemitism is enjoying a
dramatic renaissance all over the world while the Jewish
state is quickly ceding territory to antisemitic
terrorists pledged to the destruction of the Jewish
people. So the question is not whether another genocide
will be attempted -- it is being attempted as we
speak. The question, rather, is simply whether the
Jews will be able and willing to defend themselves
effectively this time. Certainly, they will not defend
themselves effectively if they allow their mainstream
leadership, once again, to cooperate with their
executioners. So it matters greatly whether ordinary
Jews understand what happened in WWII, and this is the
point of doing the present investigation and making it
public.

Did mainstream American Jewish leaders help defend the Jews from
genocide in World War II?_______________________________________

Long before October 1943
everybody knew that the Jewish people was being
exterminated in Nazi-occupied Europe.

“From the summer of
1941, reports were reaching the West regularly,
through diplomatic and other channels, of
large-scale massacres of Jews in areas of eastern
Europe under Nazi control. In May, 1942, a message
transmitted to the West through the Polish
Government-in-Exile in London contained a
compilation, by the Jewish Bund in Poland, of
confirmed massacres. The Bund estimated that 700,000
Jews had already been killed and surmised that the
Nazis had embarked on a campaign to annihilate all
the Jews of Europe.”[3a]

A January 1943 headline
in the New York Times announced, “Liquidation Day Set
For France’s Jews,”[4]and another in February blared
“Total Nazi Executions Are Put at 3,400,000; Poland With
2,500,000 Victims, Tops List,” followed by the
explanation, in the body of the article, that in Poland
“1,000,000 Jews were said to have been killed or
permitted to die in concentration camps.”[5]This was, of course, precisely
what Adolf Hitler had promised he would do in Mein
Kampf and in his speeches: annihilate the European
Jewish population. And yet, the Allies were doing worse
than nothing to help stop the genocide.[6]

In October of 1943, as
related in an article published by the David S. Wyman
Institute for Holocaust Studies, there was an effort in
the United States to change that.

“The date was October 6,
1943, three days before Yom Kippur, and more than four
hundred rabbis had come to plead for U.S. government
action to save Jews from Hitler.

The march was the
brainchild of 33-year-old Hillel Kook of Jerusalem,
nephew of Abraham Isaac Kook, the first chief rabbi of
British Mandatory Palestine. Kook, who used the
pseudonym Peter Bergson, traveled to the United States
in 1940 to lobby for U.S. support for Jewish immigration
to Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state. After
news of the Nazi genocide reached the United States in
late 1942 and early 1943, Bergson established the
Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People of Europe,
a political action committee that sought U.S. action to
rescue Jewish refugees.

The identification of an
absurdity is something that should make any rational
person stop, for it is evidence that something important
remains to be properly understood. But I have not shown
you one yet -- so far this all makes sense. If the
European Jews were being exterminated, it was perfectly
natural for Jews who were in safety to try to do
something about it. Jewish unity was equally to be
expected, and in fact the Bergson effort brought
together “an interesting array of hasidic rabbis side by
side with rabbis known as mitnagdim, the traditional
theological critics of Hasidism.” In other words,
important differences were set aside in the Bergson
effort because the Jewish people was being exterminated
in Europe and unity was more important. The above does
not contain absurdities: the Bergson effort made
perfect sense.

Ponder that. What
could be the most extreme consequence of antisemitism?
Why, an anti-Jewish genocide. So what could “some
mainstream American Jewish leaders” fear might happen?
The Jewish people was already
being exterminated.

There is a joke told of
two Jews, right before they are killed:

“Sam and Irving are
facing the firing squad. The executioner comes forward
to place the blindfold on them. Sam disdainfully and
proudly refuses, tearing the thing from his face. Irving
turns to him and pleads: ‘Please Sam, don’t make
trouble!’”

The structure of this
joke is identical to what happened when Peter Bergson
tried to pressure the US government to save Jewish lives
in Europe, causing “some mainstream American Jewish
leaders” to say to his protesting rabbis: “Please, don’t
make trouble.” The joke makes fun of a pathology of
reasoning but the extermination of the Jewish people is
not funny; if we do not want more exterminations of the
Jewish people, we must understand this pathology of
reasoning.

There is a promise in the
above joke, and in that promise is locked a hope of
mine. The joke is Jewish not only because it depicts
Jews but because it is told by Jews (it is quite
famous, and I heard it first from a Jewish friend). This
is important, because by telling this joke Jews
demonstrate that they are -- at some level -- aware that
a certain pathology of reasoning makes their
self-defense difficult.[7a]
I have reason to hope, therefore, that a more careful
reflection may be possible for the Jewish people before
it is too late again. But we must move to a level of
analysis considerably more sophisticated than the
passing joke. And then there must be action.

Let us now return to the
Wyman Institute piece and look the full absurdity in the
face:

“Bergson’s hard-hitting
approach rattled some mainstream American Jewish
leaders, who feared that loud protests might provoke
antisemitism. …Yet there were also pockets of sympathy
for the Bergson group within the Jewish leadership.”

Given that the death
factories from Auschwitz to Jasenovac were at that
very minute busy murdering millions of innocent
Jews, and billowing with smoke, where would you expect
to find mere “pockets of sympathy” for those protesting
this outrage? In a mostly antisemitic population. But
the population in question here is “the Jewish
leadership.”

“[the Bergson march] was
to be the only rally in Washington on the rescue issue
during the entire period of the Holocaust [but t]he idea
of Jews marching through streets of the nation’s
capital, promoting specifically Jewish requests such as
rescue, especially during wartime, was anathema to
mainstream Jewish leaders.”

The above does not make
one little bit of sense. Why is the idea of rescue
odious “especially during wartime”? Are people supposed
to be rescued in peacetime? And why is “the only rally
[!] in Washington on the rescue issue during the entire
period of the Holocaust” a “specifically Jewish request”? It
isn’t. This was a crime against
humanity.

You see, the problem is
not merely that the reaction of the Jewish leadership
was absurd, but that the author chronicling this
reaction writes absurdly. After all, given that the
Jewish people was already being exterminated, the right
thing to do here was obvious. So how could the request
for rescue be “anathema” to mainstream Jewish leaders?
What in the world were they for, as Jewish
leaders, if they could not find it in themselves to
oppose an anti-Jewish genocide?

It is significant that
the author, Rafael Medoff, directs the David S. Wyman
Institute for Holocaust Studies, and also that he is one
of the few people to do significant research on the
Bergson effort. If he finds it difficult to write in a
sensible manner, then it is unlikely that the majority
of the Jewish people can learn from their own history.
An institute of Holocaust studies should
straightforwardly refute the arguments that supported
the reasoning of Bergson's opponents, and which
contributed to the deaths of millions. This is what I am
doing here. My task is not difficult, because the issue
is very clear, and the facts speak very loudly.

Why Peter Bergson was obviously right and the “mainstream American
Jewish leaders” who opposed him, obviously wrong._____________________

The Americans whom Peter
Bergson tried to mobilize had a relatively good
ideology: they were learning to think in the
universalist terms of human rights, democracy, and
tolerance. The proof: these same ordinary Americans, led
by the descendants of slaves, both African and Jewish,
would soon learn to hold hands across a phony ‘racial’
barrier, producing the Civil Rights movement that
transformed the United States despite determined
resistance from the US ruling elite. Since the US ruling
elite was already antisemitic (see below), the way to
defend the Jews in World War II was obviously to
mobilize these ordinary Americans against the policies
of the US government, controlled by the US ruling elite.

“...in American society,
the rabid, hard-core anti-Semites incapable of
recognizing Jews as fellow human beings were distinctly
in the minority. For much of the country, anti-Jewish
sentiment was not so impervious to issues of human
suffering and human decency. ...American
Jews...compromise[d] appeals for rescue to a degree that
underestimated the surrounding society's capacity to
respond positively.”[7b]

But Peter Bergson judged
the compassion and decency of Americans correctly, and
he did his best to mobilize them. In order to do so, as
we've seen above, Bergson resorted to “dramatic tactics”
including a “theatrical pageant...which was viewed by
more than 40,000 people at Madison Square Garden and
then in other cities around the country,” in addition to
sponsoring “more than two hundred newspaper
advertisements urging the United States government to
rescue the refugees.” The point of this strategy was to
make democracy work: to make it impossible for the US
ruling elite to ignore the wishes of ordinary Americans,
now made conscious of the plight of the European Jews,
and mobilized for their defense. In this way, the
Bergson group hoped to force the US government to do
something to help the European Jews who yet lived
(at that time, about 4 million).

There is no question that
this was an uphill battle, because “rabid, hard-core
anti-Semites incapable of recognizing Jews as fellow
human beings,” though rare among ordinary US citizens,
were in choking abundance in the halls of power. To see
the justice of this claim, the following list of
well-documented facts will more than suffice (skeptics
are encouraged to consult the footnotes, which will send
you to the hyperlinked documentation):

1) before the war, the US
ruling elite assisted the rise of the Nazi party and
ideology in Germany[8];

2) during the war, this
elite, which controlled the US government, not only
refused to do anything to help Hitler’s victims (which
is why the Bergson effort became necessary), but in fact
assisted Hitler’s Final Solution in various ways[9];

3) after the war ended,
the US ruling elite deployed the Marshall Plan to assist
the fascist countries that had plunged the world into
war and murdered so many millions of people in cold
blood (not only Jews, but also more than 20 million
Russians, millions of Poles, hundreds of thousands of
Serbs and Roma, and on and on…);

4) in addition, after the
war the US ruling elite absorbed in secret tens of
thousands of Nazi war criminals who were used to create
what became US Intelligence, covertly sponsoring the
rise to power of disguised fascists in post-war Europe[10];
and finally

5) the US ruling elite
assisted the 1948 British effort to destroy the new
state of Israel, which involved (among other things)
sending captured Nazi officers to lead the Arab armies
that publicly pledged themselves to exterminate the
Israeli Jews.[11]

It is the last point that
deserves our closest attention here.

Although the US voted in
1947 in favor of partitioning the former British Mandate
for ‘Palestine’ into an Arab and a Jewish state, it did
so only because the Soviet Union had loudly endorsed
this project, placing US president Harry Truman in an
impossible position.[12]
So Truman ordered his ambassador at the UN to vote in
favor of partition, over the objections of the entire US
Department of State. This very lukewarm US ‘support’ for
the state of Israel would not last long. When the Arab
armies -- led by the German Nazi war criminals whom the
obliging British government sent -- attempted to
exterminate the Israeli Jews the next year, the US
government did a 180-degree turn and announced that it
no longer recognized the state of Israel, moreover
slapping an arms embargo on the Israelis to sabotage
their defense.[12]

The US citizenry didn’t
like that.

According to the New York
City police, 250,000 US citizens exploded onto the
streets of New York in a massive protest against the
policies of their own and the British government. They
came from 100 cities and 14 states, and they marched and
rallied to defend the Jewish people. This was a protest
the likes of which the city of New York had not seen
before, and hasn’t since. And the effect was to force
the US government to back down, because no such display
of popular will can be ignored.[13]

From how ordinary
Americans dramatically defended the Jews in 1948 it is
obvious that speaking against an ongoing attempt to
exterminate the Jewish people does not produce
antisemitism in ordinary Americans. Why? Because an
ongoing attempt to exterminate the Jewish people is
precisely what the war of 1948 was. I remind you,
however, that according to Rafael Medoff, the worry of
“mainstream American Jewish leaders” in October 1943 was
that the Bergson effort would supposedly provoke
antisemitism! If the “mainstream American Jewish
leaders” really believed that, then they suffered from
an extreme pathology of reasoning, because a) the
European Jews were already being exterminated, b) the US
ruling elite was already antisemitic and moreover
cooperating with the Final Solution, and c) the workers
-- Bergson’s target -- could clearly be mobilized to
defend the Jews, as was dramatically demonstrated just a
few years later, in 1948.

And Bergson gave his own
demonstration at the time, which is the most important
point here:

“In 1944, around 500,000
Americans, most of them gentiles [i.e. non-Jews], joined
the ‘Bergson Group’s’ struggle for rescuing Jews and the
establishment of a Jewish State in free Palestine.”[14a]

Should we be surprised
that Bergson got this many Americans to join his
pressure group? No. Kenneth Levin writes that, at the
time, “a Gallup poll revealed that 70 percent of
Americans supported temporary havens on American
territory” for the desperate European Jews. And yet,
Levin says, the “major American Jewish organizations did
not aggressively lobby for their establishment, largely,
still, out of fears of an anti-Semitic backlash.”[14b]
But this is absurd. Why would there be an antisemitic
backlash if what 70% of Americans wanted done was in
fact done, and when this was the obvious and
compassionate thing to do? But it was not ordinary
Americans, as we shall see below, that these mainstream
Jewish leaders were afraid of upsetting.

“In 1943 [the Bergson
group] convinced Congress to kill recommendations of
State Department Arabist Harold Hoskins which would have
ruled Palestine off limits to further Jewish
immigration. In January 1944 they motivated Treasury
Secretary Henry Morgenthau [Jewish] to press Roosevelt
to create a War Refugee Board and recommended Ira
Hirschmann, the man responsible for saving thousands of
lives, to work in the Balkans.”[14]

As Louis Rapoport, who
has produced the most extensive documentation of the
Bergson effort, correctly says,

“The record of their achievements
refutes those who claim that ‘nothing could be done.’ Something
was done, and a great deal more could have been achieved had the
establishment Zionist and Jewish organizations not concentrated so
much of their efforts on destroying the ‘Bergson group’. . .”[15]

It is important to
understand the enormity of Peter Bergson's achievement.
The American non-Jews he was trying to mobilize were
simultaneously witnessing the spectacle of a propaganda
campaign,
by mainstream Jewish leaders, against Peter Bergson.
This is the sort of thing that naturally destroyed the
morale of many US citizens and made them think, “Well,
if the Jews are not defending themselves, why should I?”
And yet despite all this Bergson succeeded in mobilizing
enough gentile (non-Jewish) US citizens to change
certain official policies, and he managed to create an
official rescue effort, however limited, that saved
perhaps 200,000 lives. Just imagine if he had been
supported rather than opposed by the mainstream Jewish
leadership!

Peter Bergson was
right: The Jews were not
helpless, and what they needed to do was defend
themselves.

Here is an example of
what might have been: If the mainstream American Jewish
leadership had rallied behind Bergson, and mobilized
their considerable organizational resources, even bigger
crowds of gentiles would have joined to defend the
Jewish people, and then the US government might have
been convinced to bomb the death camps and/or the
railroads leading to the death camps, which would have
seriously inconvenienced the effort to extinguish the
European Jewish population. As it happens, the US
and Britain refused to do this, despite the fact that it
was very easy for them to do, and despite the repeated
desperate pleas, so the extermination of the Jewish
people continued apace until the very, very end of the
war, in 1945.[15a]

Among Jewish leaders
Peter Bergson was in the minority. In order to
understand the formidable forces that Jewish patriots
such as Bergson were taking on, I next ask the following
relevant questions:

1) How passionate were
“mainstream American Jewish leaders” in their opposition
to Peter Bergson?

2) Why did the
“mainstream American Jewish leaders” oppose themselves
to Peter Bergson and to other rescue efforts on behalf
of the European Jews?

3) How similar to
“mainstream American Jewish leaders” were mainstream
Jewish leaders elsewhere?

How passionate were “mainstream American Jewish leaders” in their
opposition to Peter Bergson?____________________________________________

They were passionate all
right.

“During the era, Zionist
leaders like Rabbi [Stephen] Wise and Nahum Goldmann
told the State Department that Kook/Bergson was as big a
threat as Hitler to the well-being of American Jewry.”[16]

Adolf Hitler was carrying
out the systematic extermination of an entire people and
culture: the Eastern Jewish ‘Yiddish’ universe, a world
full of complex humor, advanced political and religious
ideas, rich literature, and lots of kind-hearted,
peaceful people. Example: Peter Bergson’s brother, from
a family of Lithuanian Jews, would not cry revenge after
surviving an entirely unprovoked racist attack; instead
he would become a doctor, saving lives explicitly in
order to thank God for his narrow escape.[17]The Eastern Jews were not an
abstraction. They were
individuals, who laughed and joked around and got
drunk and danced, who thought, invented, and wrote, who
kissed their children or parents goodnight, who wondered
whether their loves would be returned, who got together
once a week to celebrate, and pray, and who said ‘Peace’
to each other every time they greeted or parted company.
This people was taken away from us. It was a part of us
-- a good part -- and it was destroyed, which is
why we call it a ‘crime against humanity,’ because it
was a sin againstus. And the man
committing the crime that cannot really be named,
gouging out this piece of us forever -- that man was
Adolf Hitler. But the mainstream Jewish leaders Rabbi
Stephen Wise and Nahum Goldmann told the US State
Department that Peter Bergson, who wanted to save as
many of these people as he could, was like Adolf Hitler.
It is unclear from this alone whether they spoke out of
insanity or hypocrisy, but it certainly establishes that
Stephen Wise and Nahum Goldmann felt a white-hot hatred
for Peter Bergson.

Enlightenment begins with
the honest absorption of this simple fact.

More enlightenment comes
from extending the insight to see if it is consistent
with other things that happen also to be true. For
example, we may consider that Bergson was the political
leader of the Irgun, a Jewish underground army in
British Mandate ‘Palestine.’ The ideology of the Irgun
was that all Jews were equal, and that the Irgun should
represent and defend them all.

“The Irgunists felt that
they were saving the Jewish family, and it did not
matter at that point in history if an uncle was never
going to milk a cow on the kibbutz, or that he was lazy
or drank too much. He had every right to get out of the
cauldron of Europe and to be brought to Palestine. They
could not tell him that ‘your credentials aren’t good
enough to be a New Jew; go back to Poland.’ Yet that was
the openly stated position of many mainstream Zionists
-- even after the war had begun...”[18]

There had been
pogroms (i.e. unprovoked, anti-Jewish racist attacks,
involving pillage and murder) everywhere in Eastern
Europe, and the annihilation of the Jewish people was
being promised by Adolf Hitler in his speeches if war
broke out, and then it did begin when the war broke out.
So the Irgun believed that you could not pick and
choose: every Jew had a right to live in safety. This was the ideology of the Irgun, of
which Peter Bergson was the political leader.

By contrast,

“Reform Rabbi Stephen
Wise, the undisputed leader of organized American Jewry,
called [Vladimir Zeev] Jabotinsky a ‘traitor’ for
preaching evacuation of over a million eastern
Jews. ...Furthermore, Wise claimed, the Jabotinsky
movement was guilty of bringing unselected, ‘unsuitable’
Jews to Palestine. As the United Palestine Appeal’s
director Henry Montor [an ally of Wise] wrote, ‘No
responsible person has ever said that Palestine could
hold all the millions of Jews who need shelter.’ Montor
condemned those who ignored the ‘need’ for selecting
Jews ‘worthy’ of settling in Palestine: ‘I think it is
fair to point out that many who have been brought into
Palestine by the Revisionists [sic] have been
prostitutes and criminals.”[19]

Lots of consistency here.

First, Stephen Wise, who
felt a white-hot hatred for Bergson, also hated
Jabotinsky, and Jabotinsky, it turns out, had the same
ideology as Bergson’s Irgun: he considered that all Jews
were equal, and therefore all deserved to live in
safety. Since Wise and Co. slandered supposedly
low-quality Jews unworthy of a state as “prostitutes and
criminals,” we have an irony, because Wise and Co. were
the ones accusing Jabotinsky’s Revisionists, who
believed that all Jews were equal, of supposedly being
‘fascists’ -- kind of like how Wise and Co. compared
Peter Bergson to Adolf Hitler.

“Labor Zionist activist
Marie Syrkin denounced Revisionism as comparable to
'German or Italian fascism,' and Stephen Wise's son
James, editor of the monthly journal Opinion,
criticized what he considered the 'fascist tendencies'
of the Revisionist movement. ...Stephen Wise denounced
[Revisionism as]...'Fascism in Yiddish or Hebrew.' [Yet]
Jabotinsky in fact denounced totalitarianism and
championed liberal democracy...”[19a]

Also not coincidentally,
Jabotinsky’s Revisionist Party was loosely allied with
the Irgun, and Bergson and Jabotinsky had a very good
relationship.

Neither is it coincidence
that Peter Bergson, on his mother’s side, was a prince
of the relatively small Lubavitch movement, which
interestingly is a form of Orthodox Judaism that
nevertheless has always advocated the national union of
all Jews (reform, atheist, whatever), without
distinction or prejudice.[20]These days, one can more easily
find Jewish patriots in the Lubavitch movement than
elsewhere.

Finally, it is not
coincidence that the opponents of Peter Bergson’s Irgun,
in British Mandate ‘Palestine’ as in the US, were the
mainstream Jewish leaders; the Irgun was relatively
small.

This does not exhaust the
consistencies, for it turns out that Rabbi Stephen Wise
opposed saving Jewish lives in many different contexts,
despite the fact that he was, among Jewish leaders, the
first to have confirmation, in 1942, that the European
Jews would be exterminated.[24a]

For example, before the
situation became hopeless, “when British prime minister
[Neville] Chamberlain suggested that Jewish refugees
from Hitler go to the former German colony of
Tanganyika” Stephen Wise had a “scornful rejoinder”: “I
would rather have my fellow Jews die in Germany than
live in lands which bear the imprint of yesterday’s
occupation by Germany.”[21]
I can hardly imagine anything more absurd: Wise
expressed his supposed opposition to Nazi Germany by
proudly offering the German Jews up for Hitler to
slaughter! Needless to say, he was not thereby offering
himself. Louis Rapoport quotes the above statement
by Wise, and on the same page writes, “it is
inconceivable and clearly slanderous to say that
American Jewish leaders were opposed to saving European
Jews.” But I doubt that Rapoport would be ruling out
this interpretation if it had been a gentile thus
replying to Chamberlain, which underscores the sheer
extremity of Wise’s position, however interpreted.

In the summer of 1939, as
immigration opportunities everywhere were being denied
to the desperate Jews of Europe on the eve of war, the
S.S. Saint Louis, a Hamburg-American Line ship,
sailed for American shores full of Jewish passengers who
had, with great difficulty, legally obtained visas for
the United States. This ship was turned away by the US
authorities, partly thanks to Stephen Wise.

“A few American
journalists and clergymen called it one of the most
shameful episodes in the history of the so-called ‘haven
for the oppressed,’ the United States. ...It appears in
retrospect that the St. Louis was a test case for
the Nazis. It confirmed their theory that the
democracies were unconcerned about the fate of the Jews,
and it therefore advanced the prospects for a ‘Final
Solution’ to the ‘Jewish problem.’ The American Joint
Distribution Committee...did finally succeed in finding
refuge in various European countries for the passengers
of that ship, but most of them would eventually perish
in Hitler’s death camps.

Organized American Jews,
led by Rabbi Wise, had not only let down the St.
Louis passengers, but they also failed to press for
passage of the Wagner bill, which had called for the
admission of 20,000 ‘German’ refugee children. The term
‘German’ was used instead of ‘Jewish’ in the draft of
the bill because of the prevailing aversion to bringing
Jews to America, led, among others, by the anti-Semitic
‘tobacco senator’ Robert Reynolds of North Carolina.
...The cautious attitude of American Jewish leaders
guaranteed that the bill would be defeated when it came
before Congress that fateful May.”[22]

After the war broke out,
Peter Bergson’s Irgun demonstrated that they could save
lives but the mainstream Jewish leaders were more
interested in opposing them.

“...an Irgun ship guided
by Jabotinsky’s son, Eri, brought over 2000 refugees
down the Danube route to Palestine, underscoring the
fact that even with war raging, it was still possible to
get Jews out, even from territories under Nazi control…
Since the day after the war broke out six months
earlier, the Irgun had sent fourteen barely seaworthy
ships out of Europe; but the mainstream Zionist movement
continued to attack their efforts.”[23]

There seems to have been
nothing Stephen Wise would shrink from when it came to
attacking Peter Bergson. He was, for example, friends
with Edgar Hoover, and starting in April 25, 1941, he
began asking for interviews with FBI agents. Rapoport
asks, “Did Stephen Wise provide the FBI with information
on Peter Bergson?” We cannot know, because to this day
the information on this remains classified, but this is
not a wild hypothesis, given that a) Wise was telling
the State Department that Bergson was like Hitler, b) he
was opposing Bergson in every way, and c) he considered
Bergson a threat to his political position, which
depended on his relationship with people such as Hoover
and Roosevelt (see below). What we do know is that the
FBI was not acting speedily enough to please Wise,
because he complained about it.[24]

It is true that, in public, Stephen Wise denounced
Hitler's genocide, but so did Roosevelt, and talk is
cheap. So the question is:

Why so much opposition to
Peter Bergson, who after all meant to save Jewish lives?

Why did the “mainstream American Jewish leaders” oppose themselves to
Peter Bergson and to other rescue efforts on behalf of the European
Jews?______________________________________

Louis Rapoport says that,
in the United States, “The Jewish leaders feared that
they would be suspected of ‘double loyalty’” if they
defended the Jews.[24b]Double loyalty? Madness. The Jewish people was
being exterminated; compassion by Jewish leaders towards
Hitler's Jewish victims cannot be construed as ‘double
loyalty.’ The refusal of these leaders to act, and their
sabotage of those who did defend the European
Jews, was disloyalty to the Jewish people, and
loyalty to the antisemites. Indeed, on the same page
Rapoport says:

“[Rabbi Stephen]
Wise, faced by the fierce opposition of the
Jew-hating American right, was determined to keep a
low profile, and he urged other Jewish leaders to do
the same.”

Moral cowardice. Even if
these Jewish leaders were right that they would have
been accused of ‘double loyalty’ for defending their
European brethren, the right thing to do was still to
fight to save Hitler's victims with all their energies.
This is morally obvious.

But in any case Peter
Bergson was demonstrating that, even at face value,
Wise's supposed argument for abandoning the European
Jews was an utter fallacy. For that very minute, after
witnessing an assertive defense of the European Jews by
a Jewish leader in the United States, a great many
ordinary US citizens were finding their consciences
stirred, and they developed an ardent desire to join the
fight: as we saw above, 500,000 US citizens, mostly
non-Jews, joined Bergson's pressure movement and forced
the US government to take action, however belatedly and
reluctantly. And US citizens would again demonstrate
their basic goodness in 1948 when 250,000 of them
marched in New York in passionate defense of the Jews
(see above). A third demonstration was given during the
Civil Rights movement. This should not be surprising;
quite unlike the US ruling elite, ordinary working-
and middle-class Americans tend to have, comparatively
speaking, a very good ideology -- they are some of the
best people in the world.

It does not appear, at
any rate, that Stephen Wise and Co. were considering the
views of ordinary US citizens at all. Louis Rapoport
explains:

“. . .the established
Jewish organizations were fossilized and often led by
self-righteous, unenlightened men concerned mainly with
the prestige of office.”[25]

In other words, Wise and
other mainstream Jewish leaders were worried that
they had something to lose if they rocked the boat.
Wise’s position of power and influence in the Jewish
community depended on keeping the antisemitic gentiles
who ran the United States happy. Louis Rapoport gives a
picture of Wise as totally subservient to Roosevelt, who
treated Wise with contempt:

“President Franklin
Delano Roosevelt, whom Wise called ‘Boss’ or ‘Chief,’
regarded the rabbi as pompous and a pest, and once wrote
to him, ‘...you care more for personal publicity than
for good government.’ FDR delighted in teasing ‘Stevey,’
who acted like an awed courtier whenever he visited the
White House. But the results of this absurd relationship
would help compound the tragedy of the Jews of Europe.
Even his admirers concede that Wise’s loyalty to
Roosevelt ‘blinded his judgment,’ and his reliance on
FDR would have ‘terrible results.’”[26]

Naturally it would have
terrible results, because the immigration policy of the
US, with Roosevelt’s personal and explicit authority,
was designed not merely to deny entry to desperate Jews,
but to make sure they ended up trapped in Europe,
where Hitler would find them.[27]Loyalty to Roosevelt meant loyalty
to this.

Though loyalty to
Roosevelt and other antisemites running the US
government was enough to produce opposition to Peter
Bergson in the mainstream Jewish leaders, they had other
reasons too.

“[Nahum] Goldmann
[Stephen Wise’s Richelieu, according to Rapoport], a
sworn enemy of Jabotinsky and the nationalistic Jewish
movement, wanted total control of world Jewry
concentrated in his hands, and said so unabashedly. The
World Jewish Congress, which he had set up with Wise,
was ‘the single address’ in his mind.”[28]

The Revisionist/Irgun
attempts to rescue Jews would naturally raise the
prestige of the Revisionist/Irgun movement in the
Diaspora, and would populate the future state of Israel
with Jews who had a reason to thank the
Revisionist/Irgun movement, which would undermine the
political position of mainstream Zionists such as Rabbi
Stephen Wise and Nahum Goldmann. Louis Rapoport makes
explicit reference to this issue as well:

“For years, Rabbi Wise
was engaged in a bitter struggle for power with the more
activist Zionists led by Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver and
Emanuel Neumann, whose militancy would be constantly
spurred by the growing appeal of the Bergson group.”[29]

One clear expression of
how Stephen Wise cared only about his own power is as
follows:

“In the United States,
Rabbi Stephen Wise issued a statement to the press in
November 1939, condemning ‘the activities of independent
organizations seeking to duplicate or parallel the work
of the Jewish Agency.’ Wise ignored the fact that at
that time the Jewish Agency’s own activities were
extremely limited.”[30]

War had already broken
out (Hitler invaded Poland on 1 September 1939), and
some people not under Stephen Wise’s authority were
trying desperately to save as many Jewish lives as they
could. Wise really didn’t like that. The extent to which
he didn’t may be measured by the colossal absurdity of
his statement: if the Jewish Agency had been busy saving
Jewish lives, how could it be a bad thing to duplicate
its activities? This would have meant more Jewish lives
saved! And yet, the Jewish Agency (represented for
several years in New York by Wise’s ally and Bergson’s
enemy Nahum Goldmann) was mostly not saving Jewish
lives. Obviously, what really mattered to Stephen Wise
was making sure that no Jewish political activity took
place except under the aegis of his own organizations,
the better to concentrate his power. The reason he
called those groups that were saving Jewish lives
“independent organizations” is that they were
independent of his authority.

I have focused on Stephen
Wise because he was so important, but the problem was a
general one: most Jews in positions of power in the US
allied with the antisemites, not with the Jews, and even
Jews in power who did act for rescue did so belatedly
and timidly. For example, Secretary of the Treasury
Henry Morgenthau, who was instrumental in the creation
of the War Refugee Board that saved some 200,000 Jewish
lives, nevertheless cannot be called an enthusiastic
Jewish patriot.

"...it is noteworthy that
even Morgenthau, although aware for much of the previous
year of State Department obstructionism and although
obviously concerned for the fate of Europe's Jews,
hesitated to confront the president. He acted only after
months of urging by key figures on his staff (Josiah
DuBois, Randolph Paul, John Pehle, Ansel Luxford) and by
Oscar Cox of the Lend-Lease Administration, all of them
non-Jews, and only after being presented by his staff
with their 'Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence
of This Government in the Murder of the Jews.'"[30a]

And yet Morgenthau was a vast
improvement over most other Jews in positions of power in the
United States.

"Samuel Rosenman, special
counsel to the president and an advisor on Jewish
matters, worked consistently against the president's
taking steps that would have abetted rescue. When the
Bergson group organized a delegation of Orthodox rabbis
to visit Washington and lobby Congress and the
administration for intervention, Rosenman tried to block
the visit and then encouraged Roosevelt in his decision
not to meet with the rabbis. When the WRB [the War
Refugee Board, which Bergson's pressure group finally
forced the Roosevelt administration to create] pressed
the White House for a more explicit statement
threatening war-crimes prosecutions against those
involved in the slaughter of the Jews, Rosenman worked
to quash the effort and subsequently to water down the
statement, placing less emphasis on crimes against the
Jews. (The statement he diluted had been approved by
three Cabinet departments and had even gained State
Department support). Rosenman also fought Morgenthau on
the creation of the WRB."[30b]

The situation in Congress
was not better:

"Of Jews in Congress at
the time, [historian] David Wyman writes, 'Only Emmanuel
Celler persistently urged government rescue actions...
Sol Bloom [as Wyman documents] sided with the State
Department throughout.' Bloom was chairman of the House
Foreign Affairs Committee and in a particularly good
position to exert some pressure to promote rescue. But
he appears to have been most concerned with overcoming
whatever prejudice there might be toward him as a Jew,
especially in the State Department, by demonstrating his
capacity to rise above 'particularlist' issues like the
fate of European Jewry."[30c]

These Jewish leaders were
careful not to upset the antisemites who had allowed
them to rise to positions of power, and moreover they
“feared that the Bergson group’s growing popularity
might usurp their own positions of prominence in the
Jewish community.”[31]

It is important to
state without mincing any words what these mainstream
American Jewish leaders achieved while nursing their own
egos and advancing their criminally narrow personal
political interests: they gave
Adolf Hitler courage.

AsJames Carroll
says,

“As late as 1938, in a
furious public rebuttal by Hitler to the world leaders
who had denounced the Kristallnacht pogroms, his
decidedly unfinal solution to the Jewish problem was
still ‘Jews out!,’ not ‘Jews dead!’ His proposal, at
that point, was...the expulsion of all Jews from the
lands controlled by the Reich. Jews were offered
immediate exit visas -- but exit to where? The same
world leaders, notably Neville Chamberlain and Franklin
D. Roosevelt, who had denounced the anti-Jewish violence
of the Nazis declined to receive Jews as refugees...
Crucial to [the Final Solution] building to a point of
no return was Hitler’s discovery (late) of the political
indifference of the democracies to the fate of the
Jews...”[32]

Of course, most members
of the ruling elites in the US and Britain were not
really indifferent -- they were antisemitic. Still, Jews
would have been received in these countries if there had
been internal pressure to rescue the Jewish people,
precisely because they were democracies, however
imperfect (Peter Bergson’s objective would be,
precisely, to generate such internal pressure). But the
turning away of the
St. Louis, which returned to Europe in June 1939,
only two months before Adolf Hitler invaded Poland,
demonstrated that even Jews with legally obtained visas
would not be received in the US. This ‘victory’ of Rabbi
Stephen Wise over his Jewish opponents “confirmed [the
Nazis in] their theory that the democracies were
unconcerned about the fate of the Jews, and it therefore
advanced the prospects for a ‘Final Solution’ to the
‘Jewish problem.’”

A rocket scientist
is not required to conclude this:
You do not gain compassion from a racist murderer if you
don’t defend yourself, and moreover encourage bystanders
not to defend you. What you achieve with this is that
you encourage the racist murderer.

How similar to “mainstream American Jewish leaders” were mainstream
Jewish leaders elsewhere?____________________________________________

I am sorry to report that
there are plenty of examples of mainstream Jewish
leaders elsewhere behaving much in the same way that
mainstream American Jewish leaders did. I will focus on
the case of the Jewish leadership in Britain for the
following reasons:

1) like the US, Britain
never became Nazi-occupied;

2) like the US, Britain
was a democracy;

3) although the British
leadership, like the American leadership, was mostly
antisemitic, and though the British Foreign Office, like
the US State Department, did its very best to sabotage
the rescue of Jews, at least a few government officials,
and notably the Colonial Secretary Malcolm McDonald,
showed some concern for rescue, but they were sabotaged
by the mainstream Jewish leaders in London;

4) this had catastrophic
consequences for the effort to save Jewish lives; and

5) this has now been well
documented.

Above James Carroll says
that, before the Nazis settled on the Final Solution,
“Jews were offered immediate exit visas -- but exit to
where?” Recently, historian Frank Shapiro has produced
ground-breaking research that has answered this
question: Northern Rhodesia (modern Zambia, with its
capital in Lusaka). The refutation of the common belief
that ‘there was no place to go’ has come late because
the relevant documents in Britain were kept classified
for more than fifty years. He writes:

“Throughout the world a
politically brutal and inhumane picture had emerged: The
free western countries were swiftly closing their gates
to any form of mass Jewish immigration... Palestine,
which was the natural and legitimate solution -- as
defined under international law in the terms of the
mandate granted to Britain by the League of Nations --
was now put strictly out of bounds. When war broke out
in September 1939, it was too late to seek a negotiated
solution for these millions of people. By then the Jews
were well and truly locked within the graveyard of
Europe. Their fate had been sealed.”

But there was a
place Jews could go to:

“The mosaic of evidence
confirms that vast numbers of Jewish refugees could have
been saved and allowed to settle in Northern Rhodesia.”[33]

The main players pushing
to make possible a large-scale settlement plan for
Jewish refugees in Northern Rhodesia, a protectorate of
the British Crown, were 1) Reverend Cohen of the
Bulawayo Hebrew Congregation in Southern Rhodesia, 2)
J.E. (Chirupula) Stephenson, a gentile and prominent
British colonist in Rhodesia, whom Shapiro considers a
saint, and who with remarkable energy did absolutely
everything in his power to save Jewish lives, and 3) the
Colonial Secretary Malcolm McDonald, who with some
enthusiasm and then with some urgency insisted on the
Northern Rhodesian scheme even if it meant upsetting
both the Governor of Rhodesia (a subordinate of
McDonald’s) and a faction of British colonists in
Rhodesia who were antisemites. (As it turns out,
however, most of the prominent Northern Rhodesian
colonists who initially opposed mass Jewish immigration
ended up in support when the situation of the European
Jews became desperate.[34])

There were ups and downs,
plans were proposed, revised, then aborted, then new
plans proposed, and so forth. However, as the situation
in Europe became ever more desperate, a plan for mass
settlement of Jewish refugees in Northern Rhodesia was
eventually very seriously contemplated thanks mainly to
Cohen, Stephenson, and McDonald, and then it was
approved. This would have allowed perhaps as many as
3000 Jews to take refuge in Northern Rhodesia, which was
much less than what was obviously possible, and
consequently much less than what Reverend Cohen and
‘Chirupula’ Stephenson had been passionately advocating,
but still better than what was being offered anywhere
else.

But the mainstream Jewish
leadership in Britain discouraged the well-meaning
Malcolm McDonald, and kept the Northern Rhodesia option
secret from the desperate European Jews.

Frank Shapiro explains
who was in charge:

“Until the 1930s, the lay
leadership of Britain’s Jewish community remained the
prerogative of an exclusive cadre of personalities of
well established, anglicized [Jewish] families, such as
Anthony de Rothschild, Neville Laski, Sir Robert Waley
Cohen, Sir Osmond D’Avigdor-Goldsmid, Lord Bearsted, Sir
Herbert Samuel, and Simon Marks, who provided
traditional, paternalistic-style guidance.

. . .[After offering to
defray all costs of asylum seekers, freeing the British
government of all responsibility,] control over the
category of refugees admitted became the responsibility
of the voluntary organizations which became centralized
in the Emigration (Planning) Committee of the Council of
German Jewry, whose chairman was Anthony de Rothschild
and Professor Bentwich its director. This committee was
to be the primary organization dealing with Jewish
refugee settlement in Britain’s overseas colonies
[because they were not being admitted into Britain!].”[35]

On June 10, 1939, a
Mission headed by Sir James Dunnett and appointed to
study the feasibility of a mass settlement scheme for
Jewish refugees in Northern Rhodesia completed its
inquiries. The Mission concluded with the most ambitious
official recommendation, which was quite modest compared
to what was in fact possible, but at any rate much
better than nothing: 440 families (Eastern European
Jewish families were large, so these might have been as
many as 3000 people).

“It would have been
expected that with the publication of the Mission’s
findings favoring the settlement of some four hundred
refugee families, Rothschild’s Emigration (Planning)
Committee would have immediately struck while the iron
was hot and malleable, and transported the agreed-upon
quota into Northern Rhodesia as fast as possible.
Unfortunately, this was not to be. The idea of the
report’s findings bothered Anthony de Rothschild, who
expressed the wish to keep the findings under wraps for
the time being.”[36]

For the time
being. This was June 1939,
and the invasion of Poland, which began the World War
and sealed the fate of Europe’s Jews when Hitler overran
the continent, was only two and a half months away.

Colonial Secretary
Malcolm McDonald was prepared to order the Governor of
Northern Rhodesia, his subordinate, to accept the
refugees, overriding any local opposition. In a
statement prepared for McDonald’s confrontation with Sir
John Maybin, the Governor, and quoted by Shapiro, the
London bureaucrats expressed that:

“HMG [Her Majesty’s
Government] would in all probability find themselves
compelled to overrule the views of the Governor and of
his Legislative Council, assuming that those views
continued to be unfavorable to large-scale settlement.”[37]

But there was less
enthusiasm for saving Jewish lives in the body
supposedly created to save Jewish lives and presided by
the mainstream Jewish leader Anthony de Rothschild.

“However, the
Emigration (Planning) Committee jettisoned the Mission’s
plan and had no intention of implementing it. In
their discussion on the Mission’s findings, rather than
working out a concrete settlement plan, the members of
Rothschild’s committee deliberated how to hide the
positive intentions; how to keep the report hushed up,
and what the likely reactions would be to any
publication.”[38][emphasis original]

And they worried they
might be attacked for this, which reveals consciousness
of guilt:

“One of the leading
Emigration (Planning) Committee members, Lord Hailey, .
. .was particularly worried about how to deal with the
potential accusations against the Emigration (Planning)
Committee if they did not publish the report.”[39]

The method of
procrastination became the assertion that other
schemes (schemes that, needless to say, came to nothing)
should be considered first. Naturally, this discouraged
Malcolm McDonald’s Colonial Office, and so

“. . .the Colonial Office
went along with Rothschild’s Committee’s rejection and
took the view now taken by the Committee, namely that
all considerations of the Mission’s Report were to be
shelved until information regarding British Guiana was
forthcoming.”[40]

Your capacity for shock
has not yet been exhausted. Faced with the disaster of
the hushing of the Mission’s Report,

“At the end of July 1939,
‘Chirupula’ Stephenson wrote directly to Rothschild
offering a business deal regarding his own [Rhodesian]
farm as a means to rehabilitate the refugees. Wishing to
retire, he offered the Emigration (Planning) Committee
his farm for sale, whereby he would become Life Director
in an ensuing established limited company. According to
Stephenson, the farm comprising some 12,500 acres could
support 1,250 men and women growing crops for export.
His message was passed on to the Emigration (Planning)
Committee and almost three weeks passed before
Stephenson received an answer: ‘the Committee decided
that for the time being no measures will be taken in
regard to refugee settlement in Northern Rhodesia.’”

For the time being.The invasion of Poland would
happen in another week.

Perhaps the most amazing
thing about this story lies in a point that Frank
Shapiro goes out of his way to document and impress upon
the reader: although there was a lot of official back
and forth about the mass settlement scheme, while this
was going on, not one Jew who
tried to enter Northern Rhodesia, with or without a
visa, was denied entry.
Every Jew who found out about this made it in. But the
Emigration (Planning) Committee, which body knew this
perfectly well, did not publicize this fact either.

The documents relevant to
this case remained classified for more than fifty years:
more evidence of consciousness of guilt.

Is the current Jewish
leadership different? The next piece in this series will
document that it is not. But casting here just a brief
glance into the future, notice one deadly connection
between the past and the present. As we've seen above,
“the Emigration (Planning) Committee,” which body
prevented at least 3000 Jewish lives from finding save
haven in Northern Rhodesia, “[was] headed by such
eminent personalities as...Lord [Herbert] Samuel...”
This Herbert Samuel had been the High Commissioner for
Palestine, and he presided over the elevation of Hajj
Amin al Husseini as Mufti of Jerusalem, after
Hajj Amin demonstrated that he could organize
anti-Jewish terrorist riots in British Mandate
'Palestine'! Hajj Amin al Husseini went on to organize
bigger anti-Jewish terrorist riots with the budget and
authority that Herbert Samuel gave him, and when the
World War exploded he became one of the main leaders of
Adolf Hitler's Final Solution in Europe. Later, he also
mentored Yasser Arafat, and grandfathered Fatah,
Arafat's organization.[41]This would be the same
Yasser Arafat and the same Fatah that current mainstream
Jewish leaders have labored energetically to empower
inside the Jewish state.

[2]“Can Israel survive if it
does not defend itself?: The Jewish people must
come to grips with their radical opposition to
self-defense”; Historical and Investigative
Research; 13 Sep 2005; by Francisco Gil-White

[3]Rapoport, Louis. 1999.
Shake heaven and earth: Peter Bergson and the
struggle to rescue the Jews of Europe, Gefen,
Jerusalem and New York. (p.vii)

[3a]Levin, K. 2005.
The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under
siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus.
(pp.118-119)

[4]LIQUIDATION DAY SET FOR
FRANCE'S JEWS; Whole Problem Is to Be Put Into
German Hands by Feb. 15, Relief Groups Hear
SEVERAL METHODS USED Internment and Deportation
Are Employed, as Is Assignment to Dangerous
Work; By DANIEL T. BRIGHAM; By Telephone to THE
NEW YORK TIMES.. New York Times (1857-Current
file). New York, N.Y.: Jan 27, 1943. p. 10 (1
page)

[6]No US visas for European
Jews trying to escape the Nazi slaughter; From
“Is the US an Ally of Israel?: A Chronological
Look at the Evidence”; Historical and
Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.

The allies refused to
sabotage the Final Solution by military means;
From “Is the US an Ally of Israel?: A
Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical
and Investigative Research; by Francisco
Gil-White.

[7a]
I have examined this pathology of reasoning in
the following piece:

“Can Israel survive if
it does not defend itself?: The Jewish
people must come to grips with their radical
opposition to self-defense”; Historical and
Investigative Research; 13 Sep 2005; by
Francisco Gil-White

[7b]Levin, K. 2005.
The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under
siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.137)

[8]In the 1930s, the US
Establishment helped sponsor the rise of the
German Nazi movement; From “Is the US an Ally of
Israel?: A Chronological Look at the Evidence”;
Historical and Investigative Research; by
Francisco Gil-White.

[9]No US visas for European
Jews trying to escape the Nazi slaughter; From
“Is the US an Ally of Israel?: A Chronological
Look at the Evidence”; Historical and
Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.

The allies refused to
sabotage the Final Solution by military means;
From “Is the US an Ally of Israel?: A
Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical
and Investigative Research; by Francisco
Gil-White.

[10]The following three pieces
contain discussion, making reference to the
relevant documentation, of how US Intelligence
absorbed and sponsored Nazi war criminals after
1945:

1) After 1945, the US
created US Intelligence by recruiting tens
of thousands of Nazi war criminals; From “Is
the US an Ally of Israel?: A Chronological
Look at the Evidence”; Historical and
Investigative Research; by Francisco
Gil-White.

3) In 1985
Bettino Craxi and Giulio Andreotti
(respectively, the Italian prime minister
and foreign minister) committed political
suicide for the sake of pushing the PLO. The
US was behind them; From “Is the US an Ally
of Israel?: A Chronological Look at the
Evidence”; Historical and Investigative
Research; by Francisco Gil-White.

The following
piece documents the power that US Intelligence
was given in 1947 to corrupt the press and the
entire political process, making US citizens
essentially powerless to control their own
government:

"DID THE NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947 DESTROY FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS?:
The red pill..."; Historical and
Investigative Research; 31 December 2005; by
Francisco Gil-White

[12]In 1947-48, forced by
external circumstances, the US government gave
lukewarm support to the creation of the State of
Israel. But then it reversed itself and
implemented anti-Israel policies; From “Is the
US an Ally of Israel?: A Chronological Look at
the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative
Research; by Francisco Gil-White.

In 1947-48, forced by
external circumstances, the US government
gave lukewarm support to the creation of the
State of Israel. But then it reversed itself
and implemented anti-Israel policies; From
“Is the US an Ally of Israel?: A
Chronological Look at the Evidence”;
Historical and Investigative Research; by
Francisco Gil-White.

To see a photo of
the demonstration, in the original NYT article
that reported on it, visit:

NOTE: The NYT
headline diminishes the size of the crowd to
100,000, but the body of the article reports
that the NYC police estimated the crowd at
around 250,000.

[14]Friedman, Saul S., 1937-
Shake Heaven and Earth: Peter Bergson and the
Struggle to Rescue the Jews of Europe,
and: America Views the Holocaust,
1933-1945: A Brief Documentary History (review);
American Jewish History - Volume 88, Number 1,
March 2000, pp. 141-145

[14a]HOLOCAUST: THE
AMERICAN JEWISH CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE: The Rise
and Fall of the American Jewish Commission on
the Holocaust; The Forgotten Heritage: The
Struggle of the Irgun's Delegation to the United
States (1939-1945) Against the Silence of
America (The Story of the Bergson-Hecht Group);
The Jewish Post of New York; May/June 1996; by
GAD NAHSHON.
http://www.jewishpost.com/jp0204/jpn0204b.htm

[14b]Levin, K. 2005.
The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under
siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.137)

[15]Rapoport, Louis. 1999.
Shake heaven and earth: Peter Bergson and the
struggle to rescue the Jews of Europe, Gefen,
Jerusalem and New York. (p.viii)

[15a]The allies refused
to sabotage the Final Solutionby military
means; from From “Is
the US an Ally of Israel: A chronological look
at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative
Research; by Francisco Gil-White.

[16]Rapoport, Louis.
1999. Shake heaven and earth: Peter Bergson
and the struggle to rescue the Jews of Europe,
Gefen, Jerusalem and New York. (p.xi)

[17]“Two of Hillel’s
[Bergson’s] brother’s were injured in different
pogroms [anti-Jewish racist attacks]. In the
worst pogrom, when Rabbi Dov Kook and his sons,
Rafael and Herzl, were out of town, Girgoriev’s
men invaded and ransacked the Kook’s home.
Rebecca fled with her youngest, four-year-old
Hillel [who would later be Peter Bergson]…, and
her four girls; Batya, Sonia, Tzila, and Nehama.
Fifteen-year-old Nahum, who stayed behind, was
shot in the chest, the bullets penetrating his
lungs. The pogromchiks left him for dead.
Rebecca and her children hid in the cellar in
the courtyard, where other Jewish mothers were
sheltering their children, trembling in fear.
Hillel’s mother warned her little boy not to cry
out, or she would have to clasp her hand over
his mought, as another young mother was doing to
her child. They stayed in the cellar for hourse.
When they emerged, the found Nahum at death’s
door and the streets of the town literally
flowing with blood. The experience was indelibly
branded into Hillel Kook’s soul: His earliest
memories were of Jews being shot, or cut down
with swords or axes. Nahum was brought by cart
to the hospital, where the doctors said there
was no hope for him. But somehow, he survived.
In offering thanks to God for what was
considered a miraculous recovery, he took a vow
to become a doctor. This was pleasing to
Rebecca, who wanted two of her sons to become
rabbis, and the other two to become physicians.”

SOURCE: Rapoport, Louis.
1999. Shake heaven and earth: Peter Bergson
and the struggle to rescue the Jews of Europe,
Gefen, Jerusalem and New York.(p.15).

[24a]On August 28, 1942, Rabbi
Stephen Wise received an alarming cable from
London. It read in part: "IN FUHRER'S
HEADQUARTERS PLAN DISCUSSED AND UNDER
CONSIDERATION THAT ALL JEWS IN COUNTRIES
OCCUPIED OR CONTROLLED [BY] GERMANY...SHOULD
AFTER DEPORTATION AND CONCENTRATION IN EAST AT
ONE BLOW BE EXTERMINATED." The message had
originally been sent by Gerhart Riegner, the
World Jewish Congress representative in
Switzerland. It came to Wise because, as a
leading figure in more than a dozen Jewish
organizations, he was probably the most
influential and well-respected American Jew of
his generation.

[27]No US visas for European
Jews trying to escape the Nazi slaughter; From
“Is the US an Ally of Israel?: A Chronological
Look at the Evidence”; Historical and
Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.